From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,158ce2376534c35d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!212.27.60.9.MISMATCH!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:55:44 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110613 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Derived private interface
References: 
 <27656578-65aa-48b9-9f89-4ebd4e0cb02a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <0fe3b0f8-c064-444d-899d-640e891b58c3@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <128d8eb5-1cc6-47e3-a09b-b53a5ef289ce@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <128d8eb5-1cc6-47e3-a09b-b53a5ef289ce@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4e141501$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Jul 2011 09:55:45 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 43c5d2a6.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=1Bi=l_?^f1BC4i^e1BZ=_HA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK8V6?4Fa=5gKPCY\c7>ejVHB9hHHMO9:FLI;I3U>>M4PB
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20088
Date: 2011-07-06T09:55:45+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 7/6/11 6:34 AM, AdaMagica wrote:
> I should have written
>
>    overriding procedure Doit (X: access Derived_Class);

Instead of sprinkling the program with overriding indicators,
shouldn't it be normal for a compiler to detect the status of
a subprogram WRT overriding? (It is, I think, and not just in
Ada.) Consequently, programmers would mark the opposite case.
They'd write "not overriding" only if a subprogram is really
intended to not be overriding.

Premises:
- A subprogram is an overriding subprogram in most cases.
+ I.e., a subprogram following a type declaration is usually
   intended to override. Here, "usually" refers to OOD
   being  ubiquitous.

- Idiomatic use will suggest to place non-overriding subprograms
   in nested packages (factories, for example).

- Compilers will warn in any case whenever they detect
   a subprogram that looks suspicious.